Bridge dying?

[hrothgar]

De gustibus non est disputandum

[nullve]

I prefer a system where I am rewarded more for being the only one to bid and make slam than I am for being the only one to make an overtrick in a universally-bid part-score.

I prefer a system where I'm rewarded for plays like this, although it was a lowly 1N contract:

[hv=pc=n&sn=nullve&s=sK42hKdKJ853cAT93&n=sJT3hQT65d942cJ64&e=sA75hJ9742dQTcKQ5&w=sQ986hA83dA76c872&d=s&v=ew&b=1&a=1n(14-16)ppp&p=H3H5H9HKDKDAD2DTH8HTHJSKCKCAC7C4D5D7D9DQH2S4HAH6C8CJCQC3SAS2S6S3C5CTC2]400|300[/hv]

[Zelandakh]

I prefer a system where I'm rewarded for plays like this, although it was a lowly 1N contract:

You like to be rewarded for opps dropping 2 tricks on defence after you miss an unblocking play? Fair enough. There are arguments both for and against IMPs and MPs but I doubt this hand features highly in the reckoning.

[PhantomSac]

De gustibus non est disputandum

 

lol alright, but if that is true then it is ok to comment on someone casually calling one of the two things "inferior."

 

It also seems alright to point out that in a normal field size a one session MP pairs event has more of a skill element and less of a luck element than an imp event.

[straube]

Why?

 

Because one is similarly more rewarded in Contract Bridge for the same accomplishment. Contract Bridge replaced its forerunner Auction Bridge because the idea of having to contract for game or slam in order to get the game or slam bonus meant that bidding/system had to get more attention than it had before and people liked this dimension to the game. Imps tends to preserve the importance of game and slam bonuses while matchpoints rewards risking these bonuses for overtrick etc considerations.

 

I think that's why. As Hrothgar said, it's still a matter of taste.

[Charlie Yu]

If accurate this is really sad. I had always taken the view before now that the (main?) reason for bridge dying is that it is harder these days to keep young beginners interested until the point that they get "hooked". Which could take a year or two. But having got them addicted, for those that we manage it, we would have them for life. If they have the staying power to get past that point and THEN still give it up, there is not much hope for the game, I fear.

Nowadays Bridge has to compete with other forms of entertainment like computer games as well as card games like Poker. And general people doesn't know much about bridge. I mean, most people know WSOP but I doubt many know about Bermuda Bowl.

[1eyedjack]

Nowadays Bridge has to compete with other forms of entertainment like computer games as well as card games like Poker. And general people doesn't know much about bridge. I mean, most people know WSOP but I doubt many know about Bermuda Bowl.

My point was that these factors would be influential in their giving up early. But having got past the grounding the game should be able to stand up for itself against the competition. If not, game end.

[billw55]

MP or IMP pairs is indeed a preference. Perhaps one is even objectively more skill correlated than the other.

 

But I see no good reason we can't have both. A once a month IMP pair game at clubs would be a welcome change of pace, even if I don't want to do it every time. The barrier - computing scores - ought to be irrelevant by now, but apparently it isn't.

[nullve]

You like to be rewarded for opps dropping 2 tricks on defence after you miss an unblocking play?

Which unblocking play did I miss and how was it relevant?

[Zelandakh]

Which unblocking play did I miss and how was it relevant?

Use the GiB button and run through the first 5 or 6 tricks.

[manudude03]

I think most of the problem is that the game just isn't advertised well at all. It is one thing to say that it is competing against the likes of Poker and computer games, but a lot of the time I speak to non-bridge players and mention that I play bridge, the reply I get is that they don't know what it is and ask me to describe it. As a slightly extreme example I experienced about 2 weeks ago, the girl I was speaking with followed up that question with "Is it like football (soccer)?". If you look at just about any other market, you would at least know of any sizable competitive products even if you don't endorse it.

[nullve]

Use the GiB button and run through the first 5 or 6 tricks.

Sorry, I don't think you've thought this through.

[manudude03]

Which unblocking play did I miss and how was it relevant?

 

At trick 4, you didn't unblock the jack of clubs. If West exited a diamond instead of leading a club then you will need to set up a club trick before cashing the diamonds or dummy gets squeezed. However, you also need to ensure you have an entry to your own hand to get the diamonds cashed and the only way you can do that is if the jack of clubs was already off the table

[nullve]

At trick 4, you didn't unblock the jack of clubs.

There's no way I could have made 7 tricks legitimately at that point.

[Zelandakh]

There's no way I could have made 7 tricks legitimately at that point.

You are probably right - there was no way you could have. GiB on the other hand would have managed it. ;) :lol:

[nullve]

GiB on the other hand would have managed it.

No.

 

trick 1: ♥3,♥,5♥9,♥K (won by NS)

trick 2: ♦K,♦A,♦2,♦T (won by EW)

trick 3: ♥8,♥T,♥J,♠K (won by EW)

trick 4: ♣K

 

This is the position manudude03 was talking about. (Yes, the ♠K is gone, so EW can defeat the contract directly once they get in again.)

[Zelandakh]

Your line was for 5 tricks, unblocking the jack makes one more. Please go to post #227 and use the GiB button - it will explain it to you.

[nullve]

Your line was for 5 tricks, unblocking the jack makes one more.

I'm glad you've changed your mind.

 

About unblocking the ♣J: I don't think you've spotted what I was trying to do when I discarded the ♠K. (Definitely not intended as a double dummy play, although it was one.)

[Vampyr]

I prefer a system where I am rewarded more for being the only one to bid and make slam

 

Do you prefer a system where you are penalised for happening to sit opposite?

 

Most of the major Friday evening games in London are IMP pairs. I guess it's fun when you are drinking or whatever, but when I play IMPs I very much prefer to be protected by my teammates at the other table.

[mgoetze]

Certain activities may be more satisfying without protection. IMP Pairs is not one of them.

[Bbradley62]

Do you prefer a system where you are penalised for happening to sit opposite?

To the best of my knowledge, every system penalizes you for happening to sit opposite; and yes, on defense I should get penalized more when I let slip a contract than when I let slip an overtrick.

 

In a large enough field, the level of field protection should be comparable in IMP pairs to MP pairs. (I must admit to having very little experience playing in fields of fewer than 10 tables.)

[gwnn]

To the best of my knowledge, every system penalizes you for happening to sit opposite; and yes, on defense I should get penalized more when I let slip a contract than when I let slip an overtrick.

 

In a large enough field, the level of field protection should be comparable in IMP pairs to MP pairs. (I must admit to having very little experience playing in fields of fewer than 10 tables.)

The easiest way to think about this (not invented by me) is that IMP pairs is the same as MP pairs were except if the TD chose 4 or 5 boards out of the 24 at random and gave them 3x the weight of the others (in IMP pairs these are the tricky slam hands or game hands that are very difficult to bid or make). If you happen to sit next to two total beginners at those 4-5 boards, you're in luck. If you don't then you're not. Of course in MP you can also have "boring" boards against bad players which will affect you negatively and boring boards against good players which will tend to help you, but this effect is more likely to even out because you have a larger sample.

 

edit: Woolsey credited Eddie Kantar for this image. http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/imp-pairs-or-match-points-whats-better-for-small-flight-a-pair-howell-game-3-5-tables/

Edited January 2, 2016 by gwnn

[Zelandakh]

I'm glad you've changed your mind.

What makes you think I have changed my mind? I wrote that an unblocking play was missed and then the defence subsequently dropped 2 tricks and that this hand has little bearing on the discussion of the merits of MPs against IMPs. Both of these appear to be quite clear.

[mgoetze]

What makes you think I have changed my mind? I wrote that an unblocking play was missed and then the defence subsequently dropped 2 tricks and that this hand has little bearing on the discussion of the merits of MPs against IMPs. Both of these appear to be quite clear.

It has even less bearing on the discussion of whether bridge is dying, but that would only matter if this were a moderated forum.

[nullve]

What makes you think I have changed my mind?

This:

At trick 4, you didn't unblock the jack of clubs. If West exited a diamond instead of leading a club then you will need to set up a club trick before cashing the diamonds or dummy gets squeezed. However, you also need to ensure you have an entry to your own hand to get the diamonds cashed and the only way you can do that is if the jack of clubs was already off the table

There's no way I could have made 7 tricks legitimately at that point.

You are probably right - there was no way you could have. GiB on the other hand would have managed it. ;) :lol:

No.

 

trick 1: ♥3,♥,5♥9,♥K (won by NS)

trick 2: ♦K,♦A,♦2,♦T (won by EW)

trick 3: ♥8,♥T,♥J,♠K (won by EW)

trick 4: ♣K

 

This is the position manudude03 was talking about. (Yes, the ♠K is gone, so EW can defeat the contract directly once they get in again.)

Your line was for 5 tricks, unblocking the jack makes one more. Please go to post #227 and use the GiB button - it will explain it to you.